memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Yet another skin change
Starting tomorrow, Wikia will roll out a new skin to all their wikis - including ours. At first, this new skin will be an option which you will have to enable in your preferences. However, it is scheduled to become the default skin in two weeks, with even the option to switch back to the current "Monaco" skin being removed another two weeks later (early November). You can learn more about the new skin, and see it in action on some test wikias already, here and here. Now, as satisfying as it is to finally see Wikia staff convinced of the opinion about Monaco that we had all along, we will apparently have to assure them again that we really don't want some of the features that will come with the new skin. Some of them had already been declined by this community once, while others seem to be new, yet totally out of place on an "encyclopedia wiki" as ours. I will list these features below with the initial assumption that there's consensus to really not want them. Scream if you agree, and give reasons if you don't: *Image attribution, where, to each thumbnail in the content area, the line "Added by USERNAME" is added. Reason: Inviting vanity edits as well as username vandalism. *Edit attribution, where, at the top of each article, the line "Edited # days ago by USERNAME" is added. Reason: Same as above. *"New photos" gallery, where, in the right-hand sidebar, new image uploads are listed as if they were part of a photo gallery. Reason: We don't have "photos", and for most images we upload, we claim fair use - which means they need to be used in some sort of "review context" and not on their own. *User blogs. Reason: we already considered them un-encyclopedic and not compatible with our mission statement of being a neutral encyclopedia. *Article comments, where apparently, comments are placed directly beneath an article instead of on a separate talk page. "Apparently", because the current explanations are somewhat unclear to me. Reason: we don't want to invite "comments", but we want to "talk" about the content of articles in a place that does not have to be read by everyone. We're an encyclopedia, not Facebook! *Achievements. Not really sure how they are supposed to work, but just assume the typical social-networking crap like "has edited # pages" or "has uploaded # images". Reason: More vanity edits just to get achievements and, as a consequence, more work for the rest of us to revert that crap. -- Cid Highwind 12:28, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :Got some confirmations on a couple of things on the list here: :*User blogs, Achievements, and Article comments are all optional and will not be turned on at MA according to Sannse. -- sulfur 15:48, October 6, 2010 (UTC) Feature discussion As a beta tester on this skin, the only thing I can do with a clear conscience is SCREAM! - 12:35, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :In terms of image attribution, 90%+ of the images we use are (as noted above) for fair use and copyright someone else (usually Paramount, Pocket Books, or IDW Publishing of late). The attribution on the article page suggests that the image is being "attributed" to a user rather than to the actual copyright holder. This is a potential issue with the delicate copyright line that we are already currently walking. -- sulfur 12:38, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::I largely agree with Cid, to varying degrees. Clearly the image attribution is a problem, blogs are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and article comments should not be on the same page as the article. 31dot 12:43, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :Note: Things that we have been told by Wikia staff about the new skin and customizations include: :* Admins will not be allowed to change Wiki Activity to recent changes for all users, but you are welcome to change it for just yourself using your personal js page. The same is true for changing Follow to Watch. :* Removing image attribution for everyone is against the Terms of Use. You're welcome to remove it through your own personal CSS, though. :As best I can tell, the first suggests that we cannot even customize the menu to be similar to the one we currently have on the Monaco skin on the left which includes "Search", "Random page", "Upload image", "Recent changes", "Watchlist", "Help", "Newest articles", "Special pages", and "What links here". -- sulfur 12:50, October 5, 2010 (UTC) Comment by User:Archduk3 and 31dot moved to next section. :::Re: Hosting alternative: I think a discussion about this could and should be kept on this page, for all to see as an at least potential alternative. I'd suggest to make it a separate section from this "feature discussion", though. Regarding new features and turning them off, I read somewhere on those blogs that at least we could request to disable image attribution. I'm definitely going to request disabling all the stuff, and we'll see where that gets us. -- Cid Highwind 13:42, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::From sannse's blog page: :::::"It’s not permitted to remove the right sidebar modules, blogs, and image attribution or add a banner that shifts the entire content area down the page, or alter the fixed width." ::::My reading of this is that the photo gallery Cid mentioned above can't be removed, either. Nor can we use our realworld or alternate universe banners at the top of the page any more. Not to mention the issues of the blogs and image attributions. Oh, and our js is still screwed up. :( -- Renegade54 14:10, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :::My reading of that is a little different - our banners do not "shift content down the page" but just "rearrange content while keeping its overall position on the page fixed". As such, I'm going to assume that what we've done with our banners is perfectly in line with their new Terms of Use unless they come over to yell and shout at me. -- Cid Highwind 14:26, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::::The new skin's horrible; I can hardly believe they're making it compulsory! In fact, I'd be very surprised if there's not a major backlash against this. It just makes me not want to edit any more. And surprise, surprise: the banner's don't even work! What a mess! --Defiant 16:14, October 6, 2010 (UTC) That's because the js isn't working. When the js goes down, all the new skins features don't work, including things like the menus that have the history, move, protect, delete, links to, and recent changes "buttons". - 20:54, October 6, 2010 (UTC) Hosting away from Wikia? In that case, what are our options for finding hosting elsewhere? Those terms of use clearly show that wikia is no longer interested in working with us to meet the needs of our community. Instead, it seems we now need to meet the needs of wikia. I simply don't think that wikia is the best choice for us any longer. I do understand that "we" sold them the web address before I joined, but that doesn't seem like such a hard thing to work around. At the very least, we should consider all our options before taking some off the table. If necessary, any such discussion could be moved to a different forum page, to keep this one on track, but as I see it, these two things are walking hand-in-hand.- 13:06, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :While skimming through some of the posts at Wikia, it seems that according to them even if a wiki leaves Wikia, a copy is left behind. So, even if we do host it somewhere else, and most of us follow it, it looks like it would still exist here for people to use. 31dot 13:39, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::The ads would also be more personalized to this site if we were to move, but I'm guessing you guys already know that! IMO, the downside of moving from wikia (both in this case and when I investigated the possibility of moving The X-Files wiki) is that a copy of the whole site still remains with wikia, no matter what. --Defiant 14:35, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :::It is true that Wikia considers any attempt to leave Wikia a "fork" rather than a "move" - meaning that, yes, this wiki will stay as it is no matter what. However, if "social" is the new craze for Wikia, and all it values is page impressions and selling more ads anyway, I'm sure that this site with achievements and vanity edits, and another site with the current set of admins and policies, will become notably "different" soon enough. :::A word of caution, though. In the past, Wikia hasn't really been above such action, and even went so far as to commandeer a wiki, removing all people in charge and handing it over to another set of admins. To avoid that from happening here, I'd like to pre-empt them and publicly state that I'm going to stay neutral in this matter and will continue to maintain this wiki. :) -- Cid Highwind 16:38, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :I don't want to leave, either- it doesn't help Star Trek fans and would be pointless since this site would still be here. But we should keep pressure on to ensure our concerns are addressed.31dot 00:09, October 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::I've always thought Wikia's attitude & behavior to any wiki that essentially even considers moving from them to be highly disgraceful and unprofessional, so I would definitely favor a move. I don't even see the need for such heavy-handed tactics; wouldn't simply encouraging wikis to stay be enough?! Anyway, what matters is what the community at large decides. So, in this case (as always), I'll ultimately support whatever the majority of us MA users decide. --Defiant 00:29, October 6, 2010 (UTC) I'm not saying we should move right now, if ever, but in the interest of coinciding all options, we may as well find out the feasibility. I think the changes in the terms of use along with these new "features" may result in wikia breaking our copyright policy. In that case, the only two options I see are Memory Alpha going elsewhere or this site having a different terms of use. I don't want to have the site taken offline or the database locked over a lawsuit, and while I'm not sure if that's what would happen, I don't think anyone wants to find out. As far as I'm concerned the ball is still in wikia's court, but if wikia is unwilling to work with us on these matters, I'm for going elsewhere, but I would rather not. - 03:51, October 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::This has been discussed to no end several times before. The problem is memory-alpha.com is probably the best name and it's owned by wikia now. We would have to battle this site for search engine placement - which is very hard to do. While I would approve such a move - it's just not feasible. — Morder (talk) 04:04, October 6, 2010 (UTC)